We have assumed that this answer is limited only to considering the contractual issues regarding frustration and does not consider any aspect of the non-molestation or third party safe-guarding issues. In summary, a contract is frustrated when an unforeseen event occurs after the formation of the contract that was the fault of neither party and which has the effect of making performance of the contract impossible, or the obligations under the contract are transformed into something radically different. At such point, parties are discharged from their contractual

It may be open to Person A to make a claim on the grounds set out below against the testator's estate (the estate) for X% of the beneficial interest in the property. The residuary beneficiary/ies will be a party to the claim, as will be the personal representatives who should remain neutral. The following claims could be made: • a proprietary estoppel claim, or in the alternative • a constructive trust claim It may also be possible to make a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (I(PFD)A 1975) (see further below). The key difference between constructive

Subrogation It may first be useful to recap how subrogation works. In the event of a successful claim being made under an insurance policy, insurers can typically exercise rights of subrogation to seek to recover the amounts paid out under the policy from those liable for causing the loss/damage which led to the claim. Rights of subrogation enable the insurer to step into the shoes of the insured to bring an action in the insured’s name against the offending party or parties. One important exception to this position applies where joint names insurance is procured. See Practice Note: Subrogation in insurance and reinsurance. Joint names insurance under building contracts Building contracts commonly require either the employer or contractor to procure insurance of the works (and, in some cases, other structures) in the joint names of those parties.

A repudiatory breach is a breach of contract that gives the innocent party the right to treat the contract as being disregarded and entitling the innocent party to refuse to be bound by its terms. Not all contract breaches are repudiatory, a repudiatory breach must substantially deprive the innocent party of the absolute benefit that the contract was intended to provide. Breaches of both the conditions of a contract or serious breaches of an intermediate/innominate term that goes to the root of the

Party Wall etc Act 1996 procedure The Party Wall etc Act 1996 (PWA 1996) contains a procedure, including notification provisions, which the owner of a property must follow if they wish to carry out certain works to a party wall. The PWA 1996 also details what the owner of the adjoining property is able to do in response. See Practice Note: Quick guide to party walls. There is a dispute resolution process under PWA 1996, s 10. If the adjoining owner objects to the building owner’s proposals or fails to respond to a notice, the dispute resolution procedure is triggered. This involves appointing a party wall surveyor who makes an award that is final and binding. These provisions assume that a notice is served under s 3(1). Failure to serve notice may result in the adjoining owner not being able to engage

Part III of the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995 (ATA 1995) sets out provisions relating to compensation payable by a landlord to a tenant for improvements carried out by the latter in respect of a farm business tenancy. ATA 1995, s 15 defines ‘tenant’s improvements’

The right of first refusal under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 (LTA 1987) applies where premises: • consist of the whole or part of a building • contain two or more flats held by qualifying tenants, and • the number of flats held by qualifying tenants exceeds 50% of the total number of flats contained in the premises In order for the transfer to the management company at the end of a development not to trigger LTA 1987, s 1, the transfer must be in pursuance of a contract

IP analysis: The Supreme Court unanimously upheld the Court of Appeal’s decision that Swedish dairy alternative Oatly cannot use the trade mark ‘POST MILK GENERATION’ on its oat-based food and drink products. This decision focuses on a longstanding cornerstone of food law and the application of defined designations. While the result is not necessarily surprising from the perspective of food regulation, it is the first time the UK courts have considered the application of designations and is a significant decision on the application of assimilated law following the UK’s exit from the EU. It also serves as a reminder that when registering a trade mark, legislation on protected terms needs to be considered. Written by Katharine Mason, principal associate at Browne Jacobson LLP.

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: This decision was an appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) by the claimant in relation to whether a claim he brought as a worker for unpaid holiday pay had vested in his trustee in bankruptcy (trustee). The claimant had been made bankrupt in the middle of the relevant period for which the claimant sought unpaid holiday pay. The claimant also appealed against the Employment Tribunal’s decision not to allow a claim for interest on the award. The EAT upheld the Employment Tribunal's first instance decision that the claim had vested in the claimant's trustee, concluding that the reach of assets which vest in a bankruptcy estate is wide, and that a claim which is a chose in action can exist and vest in a trustee even at a time or in circumstances when the bankrupt cannot yet enforce the claim. The EAT also considered that as the claim concerns a purely monetary remedy measured by reference solely to the worker’s rate of pay, it cannot be regarded as a ‘personal’ claim which would exclude it from vesting in the trustee. In relation to interest-like compensation, the EAT noted the requirement to deal fairly and logically with the financial effect of any delay in receiving what should have been paid, especially where there has been a failure to receive what is due over a very long period. Written by Katie Farmer, partner at Trowers & Hamlins LLP.

This is a summary of the questions that a non-UK resident company should consider when deciding whether it will have to pay tax in the UK. The final section is a checklist of these questions. For more details on the issues raised, follow the links to the Practice Notes covering the relevant topics. For more details on: • the circumstances in which the UK imposes corporation tax or income tax on non-UK resident companies, see Practice Note: When does the UK tax non-resident companies? • the tax treatment of a UK subsidiary as compared to the tax treatment of a UK permanent establishment (PE), see Practice Note: Subsidiary versus permanent establishment, and • the special rules applying to companies with interests in UK land and buildings, see Practice Notes: Property income—the corporation tax charge, Transactions in UK land—tax rules and Non-residents and tax on chargeable gains from 6 April 2019—gains and UK immovable property For accounting periods beginning between 1 April 2015 and 31 December 2025, a non-UK resident company without

Family analysis: In M v D the appellant appealed against a refusal to make a non-molestation order under the Family Law Act 1996 (FLA 1996) in relation to a respondent who was the stepson of the appellant’s sister (ie, the appellant’s step-nephew). The district judge at first instance had found that the relationship between the appellant and the respondent was not one which fell within the jurisdiction of FLA 1996 for the making of a non-molestation order. That finding was upheld on appeal. Alex Fletcher, barrister, at Normanton Chambers summarises the issues.

Where a claimant withdraws some or all of his ET1, the respondent may apply to the tribunal for the claim, or the relevant part of it, to be dismissed. However, it will not always be appropriate for the tribunal to accede to such an application. In circumstances where, although the claimant wants to abandon his employment tribunal claim (or the relevant part of it), he also intends instead to pursue the cause(s) of action underlying that claim in fresh proceedings, and that would not amount to an abuse of process, the tribunal should not dismiss the claim, as to do so might prejudice his ability to pursue the relevant cause(s) of action in the contemplated fresh proceedings. EAT: Thomas Cook Airline Services v Wolstenholme.